Opinion

Hamilton v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

Court
District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Filed
Jul 31, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 38.5%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

STANLEY HAMILTON CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS CASE NO. 25-924

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC SECTION: “G”(5)

ASSOCIATION

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Stanley Hamilton’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for

Reconsideration on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.1 Plaintiff, a student athlete at

Southeastern Louisiana University, brought this action under the Sherman Act against the National

Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”), alleging that he is entitled to four seasons of eligibility

in track and field.2 On June 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

seeking injunctive relief preventing the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility rules, which Plaintiff

asserts would preclude him from participating in collegiate track and receiving scholarship

benefits.3 On June 6, 2025, the Court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff had not met his

burden pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.4 On July 22, 2025 Plaintiff filed a Motion

for Preliminary Injunction, which is set for hearing on August 21, 2025.5 On July 29, 2025 Plaintiff

1 Rec. Doc. 30.

2 Rec. Doc. 1.

3 Rec. Doc. 17.

4 Rec. Doc. 18.

5 Rec. Doc. 24.

filed the instant motion for reconsideration.6 On July 30, 2025, the Court held oral argument on

the motion. Considering the motion, the record, the applicable law, and the oral argument, the

Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated entitlement to the extraordinary relief of

reconsideration or the issuance of a temporary restraining order.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs injunctions and restraining orders, and Rule

65(b) sets forth the procedural rules governing the issuance of temporary restraining orders. In

order to obtain a temporary restraining order, a plaintiff must establish the following essential

elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that failure

to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury outweighs any

damage that the injunction will cause to the adverse party; and (4) the injunction will not do

disservice to the public interest.7 This Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary

restraining order finding, in part, that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of

success on the merits.

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying the temporary restraining

order. A motion for reconsideration “is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal

theories, or arguments that could have been raised before the entry of judgment.”8 Instead, it only

served to correct manifest errors of law or fact to present newly discovered evidence. Plaintiff still

has not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

6 Rec. Doc. 30.

7 Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 595 (5th Cir. 2011).

8 Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478–79 (5th Cir. 2004).

Subject to NCAA Bylaw 12.8, also known as the “Five-Year Rule,” a student-athlete has

five years during which to play four seasons of a given sport. The five-year clock starts to run on

the date when the student-athlete registers as a full-time student. Plaintiffs five years presumably

ran in 2024, five years after he enrolled in college in 2019. Although the NCAA may grant an

extension of eligibility based on demonstrated hardship, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient

evidence to establish such a hardship. Without proof of a qualifying hardship, Plaintiff is subject

to the five-year rule, and the NCAA’s enforcement of this rule does not appear arbitrary or

unlawful. For these reasons, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is entitled to reconsideration of

the June 6, 2025 Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration on Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order? is DENIED.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 31st day of July, 2025.

Dorcel Jobuvett Ui.

NANNETTE JQEIVETTE BROWN (ow?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Rec. Doe. 30.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.